there is agriculture. i am now 66, raised four children and grandchildren, no pension, no savings, no money, still working, having difficulty with medical care, just got back from mexico getting my teeth fixed. i would have never done that in a million years -- scared to death. go down there, such a lovely experience. people.ctors, great every older american in the southern part of the united states and canadians were there. work.ad glasses, dental you have to be careful who you get. acrosseferred, came back the border, which, by the way, no one even looked in a bag. i'd in not even see a electronic's. so they are talking about building a wall? through theng

border crossing and see what happens. people were bringing piñatas wrapped up through the border are nobody even looked in the paper. canada forg to drugs. i hair dress her -- i hear it is really bad in our town of pleasant hill, california. they put in the paper for seniors to get tickets downtown. the rec department is privatized. it is really bad. they have as doing gutters, fixing our own sidewalks, the dreams that backed up to ring the flooding. i was responsible for that -- the drains that backed up during the flooding. i was responsible for that, and so is my husband. no one would help. pulleys, nobody, they cannot do a thing. where my daughter is in oakland, the police do not even go to your house. 16 hours to go to her house for

fingerprinting during a burglary. her house was broken into. my window was broken on my car. people to come out, only if you threaten them to go to the press, to give a number to you so you can go to the insurance company. what they told me was to go online and make your own report. host: all right. today -- we will now take our viewers to the center of strategic and international studies, where an event is going on to discuss u.k.'s membership in the european union. a referendum on june 23 on whether to leave the european union. british parliament member liam fox will discuss the potential foreign policy and security implication at the event today. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> good morning, everyone at welcome to the center for strategic and international studies. imc a vice president here, and i had the great privilege of directing our europe program -- i am the vice president here to what a delight to welcome honorable dr. liam fox here today to discuss a very important upcoming referendum and the united kingdom, about

his continued membership in a words, as i loaded am sure dr. fox will help us more clearly understand. dr. fox was elected to parliament in 1992. he has served in a number of distinguished leadership positions, including cochairman of the conservative party in 2003. perhaps we know dr. fox best here in washington when he served as secretary for defense from 2010 to 2011. , and he isa doctor in the house to help us understand british politics, the implication of a potential brexit. i invite youre forward, dr. fox and we are privileged to have you here with us. last year, we had a discussion before the general election, and all the polls showed a very tight race. we were not sure.

it looked like labor could be gaining. and dr. fox said with clarity, ope, the conservatives are aing to win and it will be majority. and we looked at you and said, right? well, we know what happened. i want to ask dr. fox to put his crystal ball on the table to find out how the u.k. referendum will work out. if his predictions are as accurate as last year, we may have some bookies placing some money on the bats. please join me in welcoming dr. fox. [applause] , good morning, and thank you for inviting us back to csis. always a pleasure to be here, but it always seems that when we do, we get the coldest window in the washington weather. during our last three visits, there have been snow and ice storms, and a cold snap at the present time.

it is a great opportunity to talk about the referendum here in the u.s.. no one should understand the arguments that we are making better than americans. those of us who want to leave the european union want to regain control of our own lawmaking. we want to control our own borders. and we want to control our own money. those arguments for sovereignty resonate that are here than anywhere else. but instead, we seem to be getting an argument about none ,f those things, simply asking what is it europe's phone number? we have to get the debate going on this side of the atlantic for reasons i will come to an a moment. underrn united kingdom the age of 58 has had an opportunity to determine whether we stay in the european union or not. the european union has changed since my parents voted and my father voted to join.

my mother voted against it. they still never made up over that one. [laughter] the european union has changed from what was originally a trading and economic organization into an organization that moved ever closer to political union. that is at the heart of the debate that we have. we will come back to this, but a would people in britain have voted for a looser arrangement, and more economic relationship with a reformed european union, but this is not on the table in the referendum. it is clear the european union is not fundamentally reforming and is continuing towards ever closer union. the identity is being subsumed into a greater political identity. i think the history of super nationalism is not a healthy one, and it is not healthy on the european continent at the present time.

three reasons that i gave her getting control of our laws getting a troll of our borders. getting control of our money. since 1996, at the european council, where the big decisions are taken about the direction of policy. in 72 occasions, the u.k. government, either labor government or the conservative government, has objected to policy being made on the basis it was a gives britain's national interest. occasions, an attempt to block what was happening there. it resulted in a range of laws being applied, some very trivial. everything from european-applied laws on sales of u.k. mineral water in the u.k. to the sale of pigs between farms to our lifeboat service becoming brussels-based maritime safety lord.

allowedere drivers are to drive on british roads with europeans. these are standards we would have allowed in the u.k., but nonetheless, we have had the law applied to us. when you look at the way in which these laws are applied, they tended to be regulations of our market, interference and constitutional issues. at the european parliament level, we are increasingly following the lisbon treaty. more power has been vested between 2009 and 2014 at we opposed a number of measures, some 86% of the occasions where the majority of british mep's oppose legislation, we were defeated. being made --ws it is difficult to put an exact number on it, but about 13% of our primary education and about 50% of our secondary legislation

is now made outside the united kingdom. on the question of sovereignty, i find that quite unacceptable. then we come to the issue of our borders. this is probably the most explosive issue in this referendum in the u.k. for the largest number of voters. in the last 10 years, we have .162 million net eu citizens settle in the united kingdom. as long as we are members of the european union, we have no migration restrict eu into the united kingdom. for a relatively small country, geographically, that has put huge pressure on school places, on housing, on health care, in where that iseas resulting in backlash that is not conducive to good social

stability. all this, perhaps, of is that many of those supporting britain remaining in the european union, the goldman from european commission the establishment-supported campaign, are the people least likely to worry about whether we require a public school place or access to a doctor or public housing. something of an element of the peasant's revolt developing in this referendum. ordinary voters against what we see as a well-funded, extremely cruel eu establishment. and we have all seen in western countries and recent years what an antiestablishment movement can look like politically, and i believe we are seeing one develop in the u.k. at the present time. the second element about the

border issue is that we have million plus migrants moving it to the european union from syria, afghanistan, somalia, and pakistan in the last year. the question is, where do they ultimately end up? for us, the point is this -- when those 1.5 million plus we are expecting this year, when they get citizenship from any european country, whether it be hungary, germany, austria, whatever, they will automatically have a right to come and settle in the united kingdom. economy iskingdom's growing much faster than any other in europe. we were introducing a much higher minimum wage in a very short time, which will be a magnet for many of those coming. those coming into germany, they do not know whether they are economic migrants, genuine refugees, or sympathizers with some of the islamist groups, or they may be

an infiltration. some of those groups are in that migrant population, and we will not know. i think that is a security risk that we are taking. into all of this makes, we're now told the president obama becoming to the united kingdom. i understand that he will be taking part in a rally in support of britain remaining in the united kingdom. let me put this as gently as i can. strong protocol of noninterference in domestic issues of our friends and partners. massiveme, that is domestic interference. would not comet before our general election because of protocol, why is it acceptable in this decision which is purely by the british people and about our destiny? the president is entitled to his

views and will be entitled to express them when the u.s. has an open border with mexico. to a court that is able overrule the supreme court. when that is met, he may get his advice. the third policy, money, this is an area that is increasingly controversial in the u.k. we pay and that sum to the european union of about 10.5 billion pounds. the problem with this is that our contribution is largely dependent upon our success versus the success of the continental european economy, and that is largely the euro zone. britain state outside the euro, because it was a political project. it had an unsigned architecture that allowed countries to join.

the results were millions of young europeans are being sacrificed with the single currency with countries like spain having youth unemployment. but when the british, grows faster than the eurozone because ofthe eurozone's problems their own making, our budgetary contribution goes up. because our gdp is accelerating faster than theirs. so we have been forced to subsidize the failure of a project that we purposely stayed out of because we believed it was doomed to failure. try explaining that to british taxpayers, that they are getting a good deal out of that, and it is a difficult one. we have to look at all of these elements, and then we get to the political element that is perhaps causing the biggest friction.

it has been dubbed project fear. to try to get the british project -- public so afraid, disliking the current trends. we're told there will be darkness and a leap into the blackness the day after we were to leave the european union, that we would be isolated. let me end on this thought before we open up the discussion . the day after britain would leave the european union, we still have a permanent seat on the u.n. security council. we still have one of the world's top 10 economies here we still have one of the world's biggest defense budget to it we would be at the center of nato, the center of our common wealth. still members of the g7 and the g20. it does not some like grand isolationism to me. and this idea that britain can only cope in an era of

globalization, one which we are uniquely suited for it we had the european union holding our hand, with its hand in our pocket at the same time. i think it is time for people of britain to regain their birthright, to determine their own destiny, and that is a decision for us to make. believepe all those who tosovereignty, our ability make our own laws, control our own borders, control our own finances, will respect our right to do so and will not interfere. it is simply none of their business. [applause] well, you have given us plenty to talk about this morning. thank you so much. into a discussion ourselves, and then i will let our audience jump in. i know there are a lot of questions. i would like to start with the politics surrounding the referendum and what some are march, the ides of

, formerian duncan smith secretary of work and pension. the politics around this referendum seem to be getting more difficult for the conservative party in a cameron government, not better. and some ways, this whole referendum was a way, my words, to put the act the schism that was growing within the , as well as aarty popularity of the united kingdom independence party. describe the politics. did mr. smith's resignation, was it about the budget or about europe, about a leadership challenge to david cameron? help americans understand what is going on in the government right now. dr. fox: as a conservative member of parliament, we are governmentd opposition simultaneously, and we have effective opposition to speak of with the labour party.

they almost got wiped out at the general election. there is and always has been a really strong division inside the conservative party, largely based on sovereignty, which is much more an issue to conservatives than two other parties. but, we nowte a big know from all our polling that this is a schism that runs right through the british public. --lls are pretty much know i neck in neck. the public is totally taken aback by the parliamentary decision had half the members of parliament are signed up to leave the campaign in one form or another. much bigger than the governments predicted. i think that is because the feeling on that is not shared by all of those at the top of government. so you have parliamentary

parties in the conservative party in the country, which are even more in favor of leaving, probably about 70%, and you see where the political problems come from. the decision of a referendum was theely a response to anti-european party. i said we were going to win the general election, and a number of my senior colleagues were not sure we would win the general election outright. one of the consequences of winning that election would be that we were transported very quickly into the environment of the referendum. i'm not sure everyone was exactly prepared perhaps emotionally for what that would do. colleagues, asng soon as we get to referendum territory, friendships would be .attled

it would be inevitable that we would get to this point. we would simply have to take this through to june 23, and it is going to be bumpy, and it will be difficult for the government to get any legislation through. it will be a possible for them to get any legislation that originates in europe. for people at myself, we will not say vote for legislation while saying to lead the european union. it makes for a difficult legislative period. what i said to my colleagues is we have a five-your parliament and we cannot have an election until may 2020, and we will have to govern the country, the howrity party, and difficult or easy that will be depends upon how nice we are to one another.

and that is in the run-up to and during that referendum. so a little bit of respect for one another's views, little less personalization of it all would not go amiss. i really regret the way some of my colleagues have spoken about this dispute. it will make it difficult to put humpty back together again. >> absolutely your comment about preparing for this referendum. on the economy, my concern is not preparingl for june 24, the day after the referendum. we have already seen markets respond quite negatively after prime minister cameron secured his deal with the eu, brought it back. it is like the markets work up and said, oh, my gosh, this thing is going to happen. polling getting tighter.

it seems to me the government is not preparing for the potential of a decision. it wants to focus on remaining. that campaignsee helping me understand what happens the next day if there is a global shock. you have some saying there could be a pretty genetic increase in gdp, unemployment. it is scenarios. a lot of money from the european union. >> cbi and others have said -- i mean, we do not know what is going to happen. dr. fox: anybody who says that there is a risk-free option is not telling the truth. there are huge risks remaining in the european union. the euro zone is going to integrate more as a result of its problems.

so the architecture of the european union will change anyway. if we stay, the one thing you you cannot of is vote for what it is today. it will change in one way or another. i think the eurozone will have to go into closer economic and political union. i think that will create two european unions, the eurozone and the non-eurozone countries. it is very interesting question about the role of government. the problem we have at the moment is there is a conflation between the government, acting international interest, and the leaders of the government acting in the interest of the campaign. in british politics, before we have a general election, the civil service will sit down with the opposition parties to ask them what their legislative program would be and their

contingency planning for a change of government. yet, our current government refuses to allow the civil service to do contingency vote.ng for a leave that seems irresponsible. it is being done because the government is acting with the remain campaign, accepting that there may -- refusing to accept there may be a leave vote. the government is acting as the remain campaign. it needs to be resolved. the government will meet over the nature of the question for the referendum and the government's ability to exempt itself from existing legislation the govern referendums in our country. risk-free option, because there is a risk to leave. there is no actual plan. the way it works is we probably will use the lisbon treaty, at which point we would then go to

our european partners and say the british government has decided to leave, and we are giving notice that weird triggering the two-year period of exit but there are constraints on reality of what will happen, because i saw that report this morning. if you read the subtext of the report, it is very unlike the headlines of the report. that is what people do when they commission these reports looking for specific answer. is thethose constraints nature of our trade with europe. we have a huge trade imbalance with the european union as a country. 2005, about 55% of our trade was with the european union. the last quarter of last year, it just drop to below 40% or it we are increasing our trade with the rest of the world, our number one trade partner being

the u.s., and our trade with europe is shrinking, largely as the european economy stagnates. we are told, you will never get a trade deal, never get a good trade deal with europe. well, that would be a bit odd, because we export 67 billion pounds worth of goods and services more to us than we to them. so are we really being expected to believe that mrs. merkel will say do not sell bmw to britain -- as alic -- published punishment. or mr. ho launch will say do not -- or mr. hollande will say do not sell that wine to britain or do you think the leaders will tell the people, you must have lower profits and higher unemployment to punish the british? it does not chime with reality. countries do not trade with countries. kent -- companies sell to consumers. if they make goods and services

at the right quality at the price people want to pay. there are lots of fluctuations in the global economy, currency being one of them. i think people have to be rational about all of this. this nonsense this morning from the cbi that we would lose one million jobs, what they are actually saying is if you look at the worst-case scenario, you would actually create a million jobs fewer than you might create in the best case scenario the between now and 2030. there are variables in that. leaves campaign addressing with economic consequences will be -- how is the leave campaign addressing the economic consequences? europe is stagnating. the u.s. is doing ok but no one needs to shop at what is the leave's campaign response to that? dr. fox: it is not risk-free.

i think the elements that would areide the so-called shop not necessarily there. britain is producing trading nations. we had the fastest-growing economy and we are least likely to suffer from some of the shocks that are being undertaken in europe. the biggest problem was with the european union itself, which is much more dependent on selling to britain. so there is an incentive to get a free trade agreement done as quickly as possible. that diminishes our risk. it is almost inconceivable that markets are not pricing in risk wesome of this have seen, fluctuations in currency. although those tend to self correct recently. , and it is, for us

about our ability to prepare for a more global future. i do not referendum is being about leaving the eu. i view it as rejoining the rest of the world. >> has said the u.s. would not initiate a free trade agreement with the u.k. should you decide to leave the eu. what is your response to that? dr. fox: there will be a new government next year one way or another. frankly, we are in the dying of the democratics think is not significant. >> check that. let us leave the politics aside and i will come back to the concept of bullying, which is hugely counterproductive. a bigthe u.k. is such market, what would be the point of introducing a friction into

relationship? it is not make any sense economically unless you're willing to say we will punish our manufacturers and consumers something as abstract to be members of the european union. this whole involvement in trying publicaten the british or what is perceived as threats is notbritish public does no received well. we would ship tears of britain left, they said. we were told it would be unknown consequences if we left. we were told we would be ruthlessly targeted economically . we went from being best friends to protection within several days.

if we do not pay a certain amount every year, bad things would happen to us. a great sure it is thing to be in an organization of promises you a punishing beating unless you give them money. same thing from the u.s. perspective trying to tell the british people that they have to do something when it is their own national free will that is being tested does not go down well. in your, we had someone telling us those who want to leave the european union should visit european war cemeteries. correct me if i'm wrong here, but the reason we have the european war cemeteries is because continental europe was unable to contain its extremism in the 20th century. communism.of factors

we were able to help europe diminish the impact of its own centuryice in the last to rewrite history in this way. many of us find it offensive. fine, let us stick to the arguments about trade and politics and those who want britain to remain in the eu. let them make the case for super nationalism. let them make the case that we should submerge our identities. i don't think super nationalism has a good track record. the last example i could think of was the soviet union and that did not and that will. what is happening in europe at withresent time thinkns and tendencies, i britain is better outside that for all the reasons i have given. >> let me pull on unity a little bit because a big question mark is issued decisions to leave the u.k. have implications for scotland perhaps initiating a

second referendum? some have argued this is not about the eu.it is about the unity of the united kingdom itself. obviously, you have very strong connections and understanding here. dr. fox: being scottish, i do. when people normally ask my politics, are normally describe them as an ugly constructive free market skeptic. >> that is a strain. dr. fox: at least we have the benefit of clarity. we had a referendum in scotland. the people of scotland voted to remain part of the union. i don't know which bit of that scottish nationals did not understand but they lost the referendum. people of scotland voted to be part of the union and this is the decision taken by the union. in the referendum, every vote counts equally.

it is equally weighted in a referendum. scottish nationalists have made it clear that whether we are in the eu or not, we will draft another referendum on independence when we can win it. sayeems bizarre that people i don't like being in the eu but i will vote to stay because the scottish nationalists may call another referendum. you end up in the eu you don't like it you have a referendum anyway for the worst of both worlds. we should leave the internal elements aside. frankly, because i am in that kind of mood this morning, you do not hear english politicians saying that if there is a narrow leave vote in england but it is outweighed in scotland and wales, that they will try to break up the country because they did not like the result of people give them. we live in a union.

it is a union decision. we have to accept that decision whatever turns out to be. looking at the polls, none of us can tell at the moment. what they do tell is it is very evenly balanced except when you willingness of voters to go to the polls. those who want to leave have a very high probability of voting whereas those who want to stay have a much lower when. -- one. , wehe campaign continued know it is not very good but we know it would be better to stay hardlythan outside is a call for arms for voter turnout. >> talk about the security dimension of this. you touched upon it in your remarks. i look as if a decision is made

to leave, i see the u.k. for two years solely focused on a very difficult negotiation, not able to play its role in nato and other international organizations when we have pressing challenges and we need a strong u.k. what is your response to that? period we through this -- again, this isn't leave or remain. how do we ensure that the u.k. plays a very strong role in the world? dr. fox: people do make this case that if we end up leaving, we will be so preoccupied we will not be with to do anything else and i believe as a country we can walk and chew gum. we are able to do more than one thing on the international stage at one time. there are important elements of consequences on the security

side, but i think it is being positive in fact. if you look at the nato budget at the present time and how much is contributed by the eu countries who are members of nato, it is a frighteningly small sum. if you ask british audiences how big you think that proportion is, they think 40% or 50%. when you tell them 24% and if you to the u.k. out, it would be 17% whereas the u.s. is contributing 74% to the nato pledge budget, that is ridiculo. of eu is an important part our security. nato has kept the peace since world war ii, not the european union. that is not to say that everything about the european union is bad. i don't believe that is true. but nato is the cornerstone of our defense. the trouble with nato in recent

years in my view is that it has forgotten its political role. the u.s. has been too happy to hand over a lot of that political roles of the european union, which has a very different global perspective from the u.s.. i think if britain were to be outside the european union will first of all, because european defense is france at that point effectively, it removes the pretensions from the eu that it is the global defense force whether overtly or potentially for the future. i think that would force the u.k. to have a stronger focus on the political role of nato, which i think has been sorely lacking in recent times. i see no evidence of a forthcoming summit of that being back on the agenda when it ought to be. i don't to the downside that. i do see it getting much-needed shock therapy to the remaining

countries in their european union that they better start thinking about their own security because there is not going to be the pretense of the u.k. umbrella. >> president obama in an article that appeared in the atlantic recently complained that the u.k. and other allies have not paid their fair share. do you believe the u.k. has paid his fair share in global security? >> we are one of -- dr. fox: we are one of only four countries meeting its gdp commitment. atould like to see it done on a higher level. i also want to see budgetary consolidation in the u.k. you have european countries, a large number of them and i would not name them whose contributions are verging on laughable in terms of wider european security. ates toalong with bob

our european allies and say you cannot have it both ways. you cannot complain that you are very heavily influenced by american foreign security policy then fields when your hands in your pockets to develop -- fail to put your hands in your pockets to develop a voice. you cannot expect to have a free ride on the back of american taxpayers which a lot of european countries have done. i would exempt the u.k. from that. we are being low along with other countries to have not been pulling their weight, particularly in the likes to the way the u.k. has alongside the u.s. in afghanistan and iraq to be lectured we did not play our part in our security. >> some suggested that the one person that will be celebrating a leave decision will be vibra t

vladimir putin. dr. fox: well, i don't think that his invasion of georgia or crimea ortion of impressions into ukraine were pulled up by the members of the european union unless i am greatly mistaken. this is one of the great calculations. we have the strength of putin because of serial appeasement by the west. you had a cyber attack on estonia. he invaded georgia. we did very little, and he still has troops there today. in crimea, we did some sanctions. it is our weakness to respond.

putin, it has emboldened him. one of the key factors is british european union involvement is fanciful. >> now it is time to get out to the referendum. there is a lawsuit being put for by british patriots the have lived outside of written for the last 15 years. we are confident it will be held on june 23. dr. fox: it will be held june 23. a lot of people wanted to be held later in september. we have elections in london. a new mayor in london.we have scottish elections and other local elections and political parties did not want the referendum people for these elections for a lot of conservatives in particular, fightingnot actively the local elections because they

are out fighting the referendum. that has been in other little piece inside the parties honor. it will be june 23. it is a very big day. llsters and academics tell us that for all of the pressure that is being arrived by this, that we can expect a relatively poll. heather: this is a historic vote. dr. fox: i think europe energizes people who care about europe. a lot of folks see it as an abstract pursuit. if you are looking at the a very high proportion of those who say they want to leave rer between 8-10 -- betwee between 8-10 my guess would be. a high turnout favors remain. a low turnout favors leave.

i think that is where we are going. it will be june 23. when we wake of june 24, whatever happens, things will not be the same. in the london elections, there are a couple of other regional elections, will they tell us anything? is this truly local? dr. fox: they will tell us nothing about the referendum. what is interesting about scotland compared to other parts of the u.k., there is a very large don't know voters. my suspicion is a lot of that is i want to say rather than just don't know given the pressure from all the parties in scotland. i think a lot of voters want to leave with we are not willing to tell the pollsters. in the last few weeks, there has been one other movement you alluded to at the beginning. there is a much better guide th an where people are putting opinions, and that is where people are putting their money.

a veryts from what is heavy remain vote with the shift. to more of a there is no doubt there is a real change going on. the question is how many voters are interested, and how far does the tide come in? when you asked me the crystal ball question -- heather: we will do that at the very end. voters'shree issues on mines, migration number one. europe or economy and the impact . say the external events may shape the referendum as much as the internal deliberations on it. -- how is itson implications for the syrian migration crisis that europe is expressing right now?

any thoughts as we look at migration questions as we go to june 23? dr. fox: well, one of the reasons that the remain campaign did not want a september referendum was that he did not want the summer of my picture mt pictures across our tv screens. i think it is too late for that. we have seen the same pictures again and again. it looks like europe has lost control of its southern border. that will also be very controversial in the u.k.. but the events in paris and cologne very widely covered in the u.k. media. the information being if we don't have proper control of our borders, we're much more porous to threats that might come in. i am open to have a point system for the u.k. i believe immigration can bring

the economic benefits if it is the right immigration. what we have seen in europe is that it has not been an attempt fine, let's, -- say pick the people who will be best served, whether they are refugees and so on. britain has a different policy from the eu because we said we will take syrian refugees, but we will only take them from you campsn't -- from u.n. where we know who they are. merkel is in trouble because she said we will take whoever runs fastest furthest and that left trouble for children being stranded on the other side of the situation.you have a lot of single young man who could get to germany quickly before the germans eventually put up the gates. that has been a big worry.

it a lot people's minds, it is who are the migrants coming at europe and what will that impact have? when you look at the u.k., you have clearly the best performing european economies at the present time leaving the euro zone wall behind. we arethat in context, constantly being told in the referendum in britain that membership of the european union is key to our economic success, which does beg the question why is it then that over 20 countries with the highest unemployment, 16 are in the european union, and why of the top 10, only one is not in the european union that is turkey? if it is so great for economic performance, why is it not working for almost everybody else? the governor of the bank of england told us that britain gets the lion's share of edwards investment u.k., which must be

because of our membership of the eu. think about the logic of that. if we were getting inward investments because of the eu, we would get a proportionate share of investments to monopolize your. -- investments to lion's share. we are getting the lion's share because we are doing something different. weather tracking immigration or economics or something else. heather: i have monopolized you much too long. let us bring in the audience. if you can state your name and affiliation, we have microphones available. we will collect a few questions in.let you waeigh at the very end, we will get your prediction. with that, i saw a hand up here. thank you.

tip. i want to frame the question a little differently. if they vote goes through, the usage of potential rebalancing of britain to the commonwealth, specifically canada, australia, and other countries. historically prior to the european union, that was the focus of british trade and investment. heather: wonderful. we will take that one right here. thank you. >> hi. my name is evan reed. one of the things you mentioned was that there would be this rally that the president is going to be participating in. i am in the process of putting together the visit, and i know nothing about such a rally. he will be having lunch with a green, a bilateral meeting with cameron, and a press conference.

if there are questions about exit, he will express his views on that. he will be doing a public event as he does whatever he goes. as far as i know, the major theme is not the exit. i think maybe this rally idea is a rumor that has been started because it seems like some people would be afraid of him coming in speaking although i am not sure why they would be. we recognize completely that this is a question for the british voters to decide. they will vote. we will not. however, you alluded to the fact that maybe none of our business. we do think it is our business because we think it has to do with strengthening the transatlantic relationship and the relationship between the u.s. and the u.k. thes british voters go on 23rd and drop their ballots in the box, we would like them to be about to consider what their cousins across the ocean have to say. we are not planning on telling people how to vote. canuestion for you is

you give me examples of how it would be in the best interest of the united states of america for the u.k. to leave the eu? thanks very much. heather: i think we will let you have added. dr. fox: first of all, there is an emotional attachment to the commonwealth in the u.k., but our external relations will have to be based on our national interests. that will be economics and trade. we will want to be able to exploit market as best we can. we want to free ourselves from as much european regulation as possible to give ourselves the maximum freedom to operate in a global market with huge opportunities. if you look at britain's trading performance at the countries where our trade is growing, the countries you see, obviously china and india, as we are looking at our turkey and africa

and australia, and none of the countries are in the european union the present time. i see it as a huge economic opportunity. it would require us to rebuild our diplomatic services, which have been increasingly swallowed up into the european union's service and i think that would be a good thing because i want us to be free to project our own values as widely as possible. that is more possible in some countries than others because of a historic linkages with the u.k., which many countries face. i like to hear there is no rally. that is the best news i have heard today. not because i think it will help you remain campaign anyway but it would have been a terrible breach of protocol. however go back to the point i made. for thengements

european union in terms of loss of sovereignty, lawmaker, border control our arrangements the united states would never tolerate for the united' states. being told we should stay in an arrangement that is so optimal for the u.k. because it might sue the u.s. is not an argument that will be done well. with you to make decisions that are good for us. our allies need to learn to live with those decisions whatever they turn out to be. it will give potential new impetus to the political elements of nato. we will not be so tied into contests of european foreign security policy, which i think are usually overblown. -- hugely overblown. i think it will give britain a chance to develop as an exporting and importing market and in the global economy in ways.

we are being lowered with interferences in our market performance. when you look at the laws the european union is stacking up, for the impediments to our concept the free market goes. i am a conservative free-market liberal. i have not a social democrat, and i don't want to live in a social democratic european dictated economy, which i think is clearly failing. the direction of travel will continue to do so. we want to be free from those restrictions. i think one of the reasons it will benefit the u.s. is that will apply soccer of each of the european union. it was aged unless you want to lose other free market members, you better start reforming. i will tell you an anecdote as to why that is important. i was in an event in bruges before the last european union and i said to them more than a

third of european voters at these elections are either going to vote for parties that will want to leave the european union or destroy the european union with the rise of the political right in the political left. i said there's this trend not where you? -- does this trend not worry you? if one third want to destroy it, that means two thirds are happy. that is where we should continue at the present time. that logic says that until 15.01 if i want to destroy the entity, you would not listen to the voice of the opposition. that seems utterly crazy. that is the direction they are going in. a british exit will provide a shock to the body politics in europe to show that what happens when members become disillusioned with the project. that as a huge benefit to

the people of the european union as well because despite what the prime minister and other say, there is no reformed european union offer in this referendum. the question is does it matter to the british people and the american president thinks it should or should not do? for me, that is the challenge is thinking through how president obama will frame this. we already know we want a strong eu, but does itthe y matter what america thinks? we don't needed europe because we have the united states. we have the u.s.-u.k. special relationship. what we have been hearing from the administration is do not think you can lean on us. we want you with your. how does that reaction reverberate back into british

public opinion about what the president says? how does that work? i would electorally, not think it is a big performance. american opinion is not necessarily the opinion of the administration. there is more for the administration to think of that the european union. andeconomic trading opinion american export of any is something we want to take into account. this idea of a strong britain and i strongly you only you don't have a strong eu. eu.have a week and failing maybe it is not possible to have the two at the present time. in that case, i want britain to be a free and independent country because of the things we

have done in our country is what we have been great to do them. subjugating our sovereignty is not something i believe is britain's destiny. generationt's what they voted for the eu, in my view, the soul that our birthright to make your own laws in our own country. i am not willing to do that to the next generation. heather: it is the witching hour. what do you think will happen at the close of the day on june 23? dr. fox: it is entirely turnout dependent. any turnout about 60%, we will remain. any turnout below 60%, we leave. well, ladies and gentlemen, you heard it here first. thank you, dr. fox. this has been a very lively and stimulated discussion. thank you so much. this is part of a series csis

open tilloducing a button june 23. we are delighted you can cassatt. -- we are delighted you kicked up. -- us off. i have no say, but it will have a big impact so i look forward to watching the outcome. please join me in thanking dr. fox. [applause]

>> today the u.s. house meeting at noon eastern for general speeches. six bills being debated today including a short-term extension of faa programs to give congress time to work out a longer agreement. you will find lov live coverage on c-span. aipac will be hearing this afternoon from john kasich, donald trump, and ted cruz. you can watch our live coverage starting at 5:00 p.m. eastern time. that will be over on c-span2. on c-span3, live coverage of

hillary clinton at a campaign rally in phoenix, arizona, tonight at 6:30 p.m. eastern time.the arizona primary as tomorrow . 85 delegates at stake. book tv is in prime time on c-span2. starting tonight at 8:30 p.m. eastern. each night will feature topics from education to medical care and national security. plus, encore presentations from recent book festivals. tune in for tv in primetime this week on c-span two. org for thev. complete schedule. >> this week on newsmakers nan , aron joins us to talk about the supreme court vacant spot in . in studio, we have jeff bravin and seung min kim.

go ahead with the first question. >> i wanted to ask you if you could first describe your group and what role of alliance for justice will play over getting judge garland confirmed to the supreme court. ms. aron: good morning and thanks for having me. over 100association of advocacy groups. since the early 1980's, the alliance has had a project that reviewed every district court, supreme court nominee. and helped with the confirmation of hundreds of judges. we intend to be incredibly active this year as we have been for the past 30 years.

in terms of working as hard as we can to help secure the confirmation of merrick garland. as well as the confirmation of many of the other lower court nominees who have been waiting for a long time for a confirmation vote. >> how important will this -- we are going into a congressional recess where all the senators are back home and how important will the next two weeks the and in trying to sway central republican senators about having a hearing or moving forward? ms. aron: two things. it's just been amazing how overwhelming the response has been from across the country from people most of who have never gotten involved in

weighing in on judicial nominations who feel so strongly that the senate ought to give the nominee a hearing and a vote. i think what we've already seen ann overwhelming response. the next two weeks will be critical. when senators are back home, listening to constituents. i expect that they will hear , democrats and republicans, from thousands of their constituents about the critical importance of treating this nominee fairly. advocates will be speaking with their senators, asking them to give merrick garland a hearing, give him a vote, and treat him fairly throughout the process. i expect these weeks to be very important in terms of

constituents communicating with their senators. >> the senate majority leader is known as stubborn. he's made it clear he doesn't see any hearings this year for merrick garland at least through the election. can you lay out what your game plan is? how are you going to move him and the republican leadership? maybe there will be a few republican senators facing the margin to may say sympathetic things, but how are we going to move the leaders of the senate to your side and give garland a hearing? ms. aron: it's safe to say to begin with we are entering uncharted waters. we have never had a situation like this even in the last year of a presidential term where one party simply says we are refusing to confirm a nominee to

the supreme court. this is really unprecedented in our nation's history. in 1988, senate democrats gave a vote to anthony kennedy and confirmed him to a seat on the supreme court. i have learned over the years it is difficult to make predictions. however, we all know what senator mcconnell has said. he made that statement even before merrick garland's name was announced. i think he made that statement even before the country heard about antonin scalia's death. i'm not surprised senator mcconnell is saying this. it's very much in keeping with the obstructionist leadership he

has shown and demonstrated on a number of issues, particularly in the arena of judicial nominations. last year, only 11 judges were confirmed by the senate. i think it's the lowest number of judges in over a century. half a century. the fact he's saying he will refuse a hearing and a vote is certainly very much in keeping with what he has done. however, i would say this. a number of senators , particularly in states where there are elections coming up in and close elections, we are beginning to see a break in that blockade. some of the senators are now saying we want to meet with this

candidate and some of them are even saying we think it's right to give him a hearing. we are only at the beginning of this process and as it unfolds, i believe we will see more and more senators leaning on senator mcconnell to treat this nominee with a degree of fairness, the kind of fairness democrats have treated republican nominees over the years. i would say at this point, he's pretty adamant and it's going to take a lot of work and a lot of pressure to force him to change his mind. mr. bravin: in an election year, judicial confirmations generally slow down in an election year. chief justice roberts, the nomination was slow walked to death by democrats.

the republicans repay that favor with slow walking and killing elena kagan's nomination to the same core. this seems to be the area where the parties and advocacy groups on both sides really go through constant role reversals depending on who is in power. would you be taking the same position if this were the last year of a john mccain presidency and there was a democratic majority and majority leader reid said we're going to let the next president decide? aron: we certainly did not take the republicans are not taking that anthony kennedy should not get confirmed. >> after two reagan nominations failed. he was not reagan's first choice. he was the most conservative guy they thought could get through.

ms. aron: anthony kennedy was probably one of the most conservative judges on the ninth circuit court of appeals. we knew his views on a range of issues. including reproductive justice, civil rights, civil liberties. he had a very clear record. yet, it was not the position of alliance for justice that he shouldn't have a vote. i would say that historic ally speaking, judicial nominations tend to slow down beginning in the summer. that is when you see from both sides -- if you acknowledged, if you say senators taking their time, but it's fair to say that we have seen a blockade, not just this year with merrick garland. as i have previously said, mitch

mcconnell has essentially walked a slow walk for the past several years. it was he and his leadership that almost invented three prevented three vacancies from on the d.c. circuit from being filled. if it hadn't been for some of the senators standing up to mitch mcconnell, we would not have gotten those critically important seats and judges to fill those seats, which is so critical given the fact the d.c. circuit is regarded by most people as second-most important court in the country. i think you have to look at this in the context not just of the supreme court nomination but of what republicans have been doing now systematically obstructing the vote on incredibly well-qualified candidates.

in fact, in some instances, judicial nominees who have home state republican support, even they are being slow walked through the senate. mr. bravin: your counterparts on the other side, the conservative groups that are opposing the gave ant's nomination , two track strategy. if they did hold a hearing, this guy would be someone who would uphold abortion rights and the would be restrictive on gun and would be a liberal vote on many key issues there and that is what they are trying , to stop. don't you hope they are right? don't you hope what they hope is a nightmare scenario for the right wing is actually true because that is what aggressive groups wanted to see for a long time?

ms. aron: i think president obama chose him because he thought he would be a jurist who and has proven to be a jurist who respects the constitution, respects the role agencies play in rulemaking, in the environment, in terms of workers rights. we have no idea how he will rule on an abortion case. we don't know his views on the merits on the gun case. he is certainly a candidate who would not have been selected by this president if he would turn the clock back on our civil rights, women's rights, environmental worker protection. i certainly don't think obama would have selected a candidate who would undo so much of the progress we have made but by the same token, president obama it

appears picked a nominee not to pick a fight but because he really wanted this nominee to get confirmed. merrick garland, when he went to for his hearing to the d.c. circuit in 1997, he had 32 republicans voting for his confirmation. seven of them are still in the senate today. just a few weeks ago, orrin hatch praised him. jurisprudence. it's very difficult to label merrick garland. he is certainly not a fulbright full throated thurgood marshall. by the same token he has an , outstanding record, intellect, intellect and has , garnered praise from a broad swath of the american people. i think it will be difficult on

the merit for republicans and their counterparts in the advocacy groups to really challenge him given the fact so many ultraconservative lawyers interest groups have praised his , work on the d.c. circuit. >> if a democrat wins the white house in november, could that whether it is hillary clinton or bernie sanders, should that person renominate merrick garland or to someone more progressive? ms. aron: i am not going there. [laughter] i think merrick garland is really a stellar nominee. i think he should be confirmed. i think he will be a wonderful addition to the supreme court. i think he should be confirmed this year and then with the

upcoming vacancies, which we assume will occur, after all, three of the justices will be in their 80's by 2018, which means the next president might have the opportunity to name several more supreme court justices. i think we should confirm merrick garland this year and see what happens in the future. i would say this though. the other names on the shortlist, jane kelly, paul watford, all are stellar nominees and i hope they take their place on the court one day as well. >> we have about 10 minutes left. mr. bravin: bernie sanders says he has a litmus test for nominees. they have to be willing to overrule citizens united. hillary clinton also indicated

that practically the same thing. she has also indicated that the decision has to go. are you at all this comforted by -- discomforted by the idea of presidential candidates laying out specific rulings they expect their nominees to make? ms. aron: we have taken issue with the use of litmus tests going back to the early 1980's when president reagan articulated in his reelection run that he was going to look for judges who met three criteria, were antiabortion, anti-affirmative action and civil rights, and in favor of prayer in school. as long as we've been involved in toilet of these fields -- fields of these

judicial selection, it has certainly been my position that litmus tests have no place in the national conversation. having said that, i think it's important for a president -- in fact, critical for presidents to talk about the court and the kinds of justices they would like to see on the court. but i have never supported litmus tests from democratic or republican candidates. you know basically, when each of , us enters a courtroom as a party, we want to make sure that the judge before whom we are appearing is someone who's fair-minded, open-minded, and hasn't rendered an opinion on any particular issue. i think that is what we all hope for when we walk into a courtroom. i think that is what we deserve to expect from our judges. therefore, pledges of one sort or another i think are very

hurtful to the national discourse. >> you were talking about the lower court vacancies earlier. senate republican leaders haven't ruled out stopping confirmations of the lower court judges so far this to them but -- so far this year, but are you concerned that will bleed into the lower court and effectively halt those confirmations for the rest of the year even when we are still early in this election year? ms. aron: yes, i do. i think there's something like 40 nominees on the floor of the senate. when you look at these 40 nominees, every single one of them has been approved by their home state senator. there is really no reason in the worldw why they shouldn't get a vote and shouldn't be seated on the lower courts. you take a state like texas and

, and i know senators ted cruz and senator cornyn have been out there talking about the supreme court. i just wish those senators would turn their attention to something like nine or 10 vacancies that exist in texas. that's a state that has so much litigation, so much of a backlog, you have to be flying in judges from around the country to hear cases in that state. it would be really good for the country and the state of texas for those two in particular to focus on filling vacancies in their own state before they start talking about the supreme court. it is really a problem in texas as it is in other states around the country. mr. bravin: the white house, or at least some people in the white house, have a new group out.

they call themselves constitutional responsibility projects. how are you quit donating all of these different voices? is the white house calling the shots, are you each doing your own thing? how is the strategy organize? ms. aron: i would say that we at alliance for justice will be preparing a substantive report on merrick garland's record. other groups are engaging in major e-mails, other groups will be lobbying, other groups like moveon are sponsoring days of action. i would say it's a rather large conglomeration of organizations engaged in negativity's and they do best. there are meetings simply for groups to share information about what each and everyone is

doing. but at the end of the day, what we're seeing is such a proliferation of organizations and individuals that care passionately about this that most are often running and particularly in the next two weeks, will be leaning heavily on senate leadership and senators through a variety of different tactics and strategies. ms. kim: if judge garland is confirmed, what do you see his role being? could he be a critical swing vote? ms. aron: he possibly could be. i think it's hard to say at the moment. i can say this much -- his record, from what we know on his court of appeals, certainly differs very much from antonin scalia's. he is a judge who has been very

respectful of the role agencies played. you see that permeating all of his decisions on the d.c. circuit. that's a far cry from antonin scalia, who was very critical of what agencies do and what congress does. i think you will see from merrick garland someone who is a very careful jurist, someone very thoughtful. most importantly, what he will bring to his decision-making is humility and understanding that at the end of the day, what he and his other colleagues on that court are doing will affect the lives redirect we of every american in this country. i think his humility will be something that will be a breath of fresh air on the supreme court. mr. bravin: one thing he won't

bring to that court is diversity. he is another white male, harvard-educated attorney who spent most of his career working in the government or as a federal judge. that seems in some ways different from what the president was talking about when he suggested he wanted more of a salt of the earth figure who understand the struggles of common people. that's not a judge garland's fault. isn't it true a lot of groups on the left were disappointed that you had another guy who at least if you look at him on paper was just like so many other federal appointees? ms. aron: when you look at

president obama's record overall, in terms of his appointment of asian-americans, latinos, african-americans, he has done more than any other president in history to diversify the federal courts. his record is unmatched. i am delighted that he placed sonia sotomayor on the supreme court. equally happy elena kagan is there and i don't want to second-guess the president's thinking on this but i have so much confidence in the first two nominees and justices he appointed that i think merrick garland will be just as good as his previous two picks. we have many, many years of vacancies to fill. we will undoubtedly have

retirement's coming up very soon and i can only think that if it's a democrat who was elected in november, that democrat will take diversity into account. in fact, make diversity a priority, as democratic presidents have done in the past. ms. kim: what do you make of some other comments from senate republicans that they would be willing to take up his nomination in the lame-duck session? ms. aron: i think if senators are going to play games, they ought to really think twice. they all to think about two things. one, the constitutional task ahead of them that asks them to give the nominee a fair hearing and fair consideration. two, each of us wakes up every morning. we have a job to do in we get it done.

all we're asking is for the republicans to do the same. i think to say we will put this off to lame duck on the condition hillary clinton is elected, we might consider confirming merrick garland because hillary clinton might send up someone more liberal. that's a ridiculous hypothetical and they ought to stop it. they ought to do their jobs. they ought to stop refusing to give merrick garland the same

courtesy democrats have even republicans and confirm him soon. host: thank you for being this week's newsmaker. ms. aron: thank you so much. host: let me turn to our reporters. let's begin with the president making this announcement this past week of his pick to the supreme court. what happens next? mr. bravin: formally, he sent a document to the senate and it's up to the senate to schedule a hearing. host: but he did say he would meet with them after the break. mr. bravin: if he can meet with criminals, he might be able to meet with merrick garland also. host: what do you think?

we have heard from some republicans who are for reelection who will say "i will meet with him." do you think the pressure on them increases from groups like alliance on justice and others? ms. kim: i think it depends on what we see independent voters do in their home state as a mobilizing issue for basis of both parties. you have liberals saying we have to give him a hearing. a release depends on whether they feel they might lose the election on this issue and new hampshire hasn't felt that yet. if they do start to feel that pressure, then they might start to see it but i think they're counting on the fact this is an important issue but not when the

voters actually vote on. mr. bravin: they can't control was a leadership does. also moving their whole caucus, which has some very principled who mightd opponents use a different word of this issue. me ask you about the history here. referring to the biden role on the senate floor, saying what the american -- let the american

people speak during an election. who is right on history? history is written by the victors. we will find out after this plays out here you'd we can say this about joe biden. let's remember where he was in 1992. he had just resided over the confirmation of clarence thomas, which was not a great moment in his own record as a senator. he managed to disappoint and frustrate both sides and that. republicans felt that clarence thomas was treated for lee. saying that he suffered a high-tech lynching. democrats saw claims of his alleged sexual harassment underplay that hearing. and then the confirmation of -- an extremely conservative justice to succeed one of the most liberal justices in history, or good marshall.

joe biden may have been under special pressure to say that he was not going to let that kind of debacle occur again on his watch. i don't know if he was speaking more broadly for the democratic caucus. but let's remember where he was specifically at that point. hearinge confirmation is coming up on hbo next month. we will see how they portray the biden role on tv. for being ayou both part of "newsmakers" this week. appreciate it. guest: thank you very much. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] today, the house gets in at noon. six bills being debated, including a short-term extension of faa programs to give congress time to work out a longer agreement. join us live on c-span later. aipac will hold its annual .eeting this afternoon

they will host donald trump, ted cruz, hillary clinton. that will be over on c-span2. c-span3, live coverage of hillary clinton at a campaign rally in arizona. the arizona primary tomorrow. 85 democratic delegates are at stake. >> tonight on "the at thecators," a look fcc lifeline program and the plan to provide broadband internet access to is the digital divide between higher and lower income americans. the fcc is expected to take up the proposal in march. we will talk to the policy director at the tibetan foundation. and a visiting scholar at the aei center for technology policy. we are joined by brandon sasso,

national journal technology reporter. they need access to broadband now. it is unclear to me that congress would be able to pass support that is directly aimed at low income users. this product has not been part has not beeness particularly supportive of folks in poverty. the congress on the hill has been hard to decipher. >> essentially they are putting the cart before the horse. they haven't done a real study to suggest that these of the drivers keeping low income people from adopting broadband. whether we need nine dollars per month for 10 billion people or $40 per month for 2 billion people. you want to make sure the money goes out effectively and intelligently. they simply have done some level of analysis. >> tonight, at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span two.

>> during a recent question time, david cameron responded to questions on energy policy, new employment month -- numbers, and education. this is about half an hour. >> in addition to my duties in the house, i shall have further such meetings today. 60% [indiscernible] with a jobs fair in the next two with my5 companies honorable friend and a good stop , so we must not be complacent and continue to get. [indiscernible]

very much agree with what my honorable friend said. if we take today's unemployment it has come down by 91,000 people. i'm sure the house would welcome an update on the figures out today. employment in our country a record high of 31.4 million people. compared with 2010 there are now 2,370,000 people in work and then when i became prime minister, down 18,000 in the last month. figures that i'm sure would be welcome across the house. [loud grumbling] >> thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. could the prime minister tell the house how many people will die from respiratory disease as a result of air pollution before this country makes its legal

byigations on air quality 2020 top -- 2025? >> i don't have those figures at hand, but i do know that we have new regulations on diesel engines that are helping with study decarbonization of our withct -- power sector strong legislation already in making sure we have clean air in the cities. i could help, the sad truth is that half a million people would die because of this country's failure to comply with international law on air pollution. perhaps i could ask another question. how much does air pollution cost the economy every year? prime minister: of course it cost ilya and because people are being injured. that is why we are seeing emissions from cars coming down, that is why we have the clean air zones.

if we deliver in terms of the carbon reduction plan for electricity generation, we will see something like an 85% reduction in carbon between 1990 and 2030, giving us one of the best green records anywhere in the world. >> the royal college of physicians estimates that air pollution costs the economy 20 billion pounds per year. the failure to deal with air pollution is killing people. only a few days ago london faced a severe smog warning. mayor of london, presided over the legal reach of air quality in the capital every day since 2012. so, why can't the prime minister hurry of action to make us comply with international law and above all help for the people of this country? it was theter: conservative governments of the 1950's the past of the clean air

act. [loud grumbling] thisure that it will be conservative action -- government that takes further action, including lower car emissions. why are we able to do this? not only because we care about the environment, but because we have an economy strong enough to pay for these improvements. >> we are welcomed the clean air act of 1956, but things have moved on a bit since then. [laughter] -- government [loud grumbling] the government are now threatened with being taken to its failure to comply with international law on air pollution. he's proposing to spend tens, if not hundreds of thousands of defendingpublic money the indefensible. instead why not invest money in cleaner air and better air quality for everyone in this country? investing. for instance, we are phasing out

the use of coal power stations far in advance of what other european countries are doing, blazing a trail in terms of more renewable energy and the clean energy we will be investing in. these things will all make a difference. can onlyy again, you do this if you have a strong economy able to pay for these things. if theinister: -- >> government and the prime minister are so keen on renewable energy, can he explain why on monday the house approved a new regulations to allow communities of veto on clean energy projects? got a question here from angela in lancaster. she asks this -- if i were you i would listen -- [loud grumbling] will the prime minister offer the same right of veto to her community and communities like hers across the country on a veto on fracking? properinister: we have a

landing system for deciding these things. if you once to know what's happening in terms of renewable energy, 99% of the solar panels installed in this country were installed since i became prime minister. the united kingdom now has the vehicleargest ultralow emissions market anywhere in the european union. we've seen one of the strongest growth's in renewable energy. isn't it remarkable? welcomestions in and no for the unemployment. no mention on the 31 million people at work. no mention of the fact that more women and young people are at work. bringing home a salary and a wage and paying taxes. not a word from the party that is a party of labor, i thought. that's the truth, the party getting people into work. [loud cheers and grumbling]

>> questions for the prime minister are these. he once boasted that he led the greenest government ever. no husky was safe from his cuddles. [laughter] can he explain why the energy and climate change select committee has produced a damming report when it comes to energy, saying that major investors described his policies as risky as a result of cuts and changes? why is this government so failing the renewable energy sector and those who work in that industry? any proper look at the figures will find that this government has a remarkable outlook in green energy. the climate action network, they said that britain is the second best country in the world for

tackling climate change after denmark. that is our record. since 2010 we have reduced greenhouse gases by 14%, over delivering against all of our carbon budgets. first trulyhe global agreement to tackle climate change with annual support for renewables doubling to over 10 billion pounds by 2020. on renewable electricity we are on track to deliver our target by 2020. almost all of that would have happened under a conservative led government. that's the record and we are proud of it. >> question number two, mr. speaker. positive some very things going on in the economy here and today's figures show employment up by 140,000 since 2010. more than 108,000 businesses were created between 2010 and

2014. thanks to our long-term economic plan we have been in the -- we have been able to invest in our public service reform on the education system, giving up the resources that they need. >> unemployment is down again in my beautiful lichfield. [loud grumbling] yesterday was an absolute first for the west midlands, when the whole region cooperated to present -- present 37 schemes at an international conference to jobs. a further 178,000 what more can the prime minister midlandpport the engine? apart from insuring of course that we never get a labor government? [loud grumbling] very glad myr: i'm honorable friend chose to be here rather than cannes. [laughter] he's right about these schemes. we had deals signed to create

jobs in coventry. stafford sure was opening a new cap -- a new factory, bringing 400 jobs. of course we had that historic deal with the west midlands that tos significant new power the elected mayor, changing the way our country is run, building the strength of our great cities. birmingham is the second city of our country. >> angus robertson? [loud grumbling] >> there is widespread grumbling tot drones will be sent libya. is this true? why has parliament not been informed? had anynister: if we plans to send conventional forces, i would come to this house and discuss it. what we want to see libya is the formation of a liberty government. there is per -- progress with the prime minister.

we want to hear from him what assistance and help we think .hould begin than in libya countries like britain, france, america, and italy will definitely try to help that new government. right now libya is a people smuggling route that is bad for europe and bad for us. you also have other things in libya that are bad for us and bad for the rest of europe. troophave any plans for training or deployment in a conventional sense, we will of course come to the house to discuss it. >> the u.k. spent 13 times more bombing libya than securing the peace after the overthrow of the hated qadhafi regime. the critics of u.k. policy even include president obama of the united states. giveill the prime minister a commitment to bring the issue of any potential libyan deployment of any british forces to parliament for approval

?efore giving the green light will he give that commitment? yes or no. prime minister: i'm happy to give that commitment, as we always do. i'm very clear that it was right to take action to prevent that slaughter that colonel kenaf he would have carried out against his people. i believe that was right. of course, libya is an estate that is very concerning right now. everyone has to take their responsibilities for that. i would say that after the conflict the british government did support the training of libyan troops. we did bring the prime minister to the g8. we went to the united nations and passed resolutions to help the government but so far we haven't been able to bring about the government of national accord that can bring about -- that semblance of stability. is it in our interest to help them do exactly that? yes, it is. >> barroom davis. [loud grumbling]

>> my constituency was one for the first time ever by the conservatives. [loud grumbling] transformed by the rest of the region. having signed the deal yesterday, could the prime minister give absolute assurance that they are doing everything they lagoons that the tidal lagoon project fits u.k. energy strategy and further recognize the economic potential this will bring to the swansy bay region? >> i thank my right honourable friend. i remember visiting him after his victory last year. we went to brewery for mild celebration. he is right the tidal lagoons has potential. we launched a study to better understand the technology. we'll work with findings of that review and work closely with the

developers to make a decision on swansy. >> north wales is a strong manufacturing and exporting region but its growth is constrained by lack of access to airports in northwest england. office for rail regulation is currently considering applications for rail paths from north wales. will the prime minister support a cross party campaign for fairness for north wales and for access to airports in northwest england? >> so the former secretary of state for wales, honourable member for west came to see me recently about this because i think there is very strong argument how we better connect north wales with the northwest of england to make sure that we build on the economic strength of both. so i will look very carefully what he says and what my right honourable friend says about the potential for increasing rail capacity. >> dr. james davis.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. last week a high court judge ruled in favor of a cpo of the great two-star listed former north wales hospital in denby. years of neglect by the offshore company resulted buildings being brought to the point of collapse. thanks to the groundbreaking work carried out by the county council and prince's regeneration trust their future would be now safeguarded but what can the prime minister do to prevent buildings such as these deemed national assets falling into those who are not fit and proper guardians and particularly those outside of our judicial system? >> my right honourable friend make as important point. i'm a wire of this case. heritage is devolved matter, great news these buildings i know how important they are will be safeguarded. my understanding they were bought way back in 199by a company and left completely abandoned. as he says that is no way to treat a great two-star listed building. that is why we have the powers

in place for compulsory purchase orders. in this case the council w >> the u.s. house is about to gaveling. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. march 21, 2016. i hereby appoint the honorable steve womack to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan. speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 5, 2016, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties